May 30, 2005

First, human nature. It has some elements of the Pavlovian response, which is that if someone gets rewarded when he does something and punished when he does another, he will tend to gravitate towards the first over the latter.

Heaven as a sort of rewards system, was based upon that facet of human nature. It was to get people to do things, for ill or good, in return for freedom from misery and poverty. Which believe it or not, there was an absolute abundance of before America and Britain came along.

We are indeed fortunate to have evolved from a system in which generally, if something is positive then you will get rewarded for doing that positive thing. It reinforces itself. What it does not do is take into account the utter creativity of the human mind.

Therefore you will find people that will do bad things, again and again over and over. Not because they get spoiled or shielded from the consequences of their actions, no, rather it is because they somehow don't know any better. Even animals know better, but the human mind has somehow inversed the Pavlovian Response. Therefore abused wives will keep finding new husbands to abuse them, and people who are miserious will always find things to make them sad.

It is an interesting quirk of sentience, the ability to override built in instinctual responses.

All of this is what I was thinking of while reading about the anti-Semitism in Britain. I was wondering why the Jews kept getting picked on. It wasn't like there were no other people you could pick on, there are plenty of em. The poor, the rich, the stupid, the crippled, humanity has loads of abnormal people to choose from. Why do the Jews have such a consistent record?

It is not religon based, at least not on one specific religion. Arabs and Christians both have persecuted Jews. Hitler, of no particular religion infamous for, picked on the Jews. France, when surrendering, sent off the Jews to be cooked.

It is as if the Jews have somehow been integrated into the HUMAN PSYCHE as the "weak kid to be picked on". I wonder why that is.

The only kind of behavior even close to anti-Semitism is anti-Americanism. Yet, it would seem to be counter-intuitive on the face of it. America is the strongest power of all power groups, in the history of the world while the Jews have been historically the weakest in power. So there must be some underlying commonality between anti-A and anti-S, some kind of reward for the twisted human that hates either one, or simply both for double the rewards.

Discounting hate for hate's sake, there has got to be some kind of reward or positive feedback. I must assue these people are not masochists, that they enjoy inflicting pain upon themselves.

Quote:The problem -- no, the obscenity -- is that many if not most of those academics voting against the boycott probably agree with these lies about Israel. They share the view that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians. They subscribe to the moral inversion which views genocidal aspirations more sympathetically than Israel's self-defence. They go along with the lie that this self-defence is actually unprovoked aggression. They parrot the fiction that the 'occupation' and the settlements are illegal. In short, these academics are the problem no less than the bocotters. They have helped foster the climate of hatred, bigotry and lies towards Israel that is now the default position on British campuses. They have created the swamp from which the pestilence of the boycott has sprung.

The conclusion I did come to, was that both America and Israel do not make examples out of people that oppose them. That is a lack of negative consequences, while the positive consequences seem to be power. So long as you have a boogeyman to blame all your problems on, you don't have to actually get to work fixing any of those problems. One reason why the Middle East is still shit up a creek without a flotation device. They are there to be stepped on, and they will try to make stepping on them as unpleasant as possible. Which is why you tend to avoid turds in rivers, if you can.

America objects on philosophical grounds of something called "free speech" or "Constitutional rights for GITmo prisoners" or something like that. Israel, i must assume since i have not studied Israel's pacifistic tendencies in detail, objects to making examples out of their enemies based upon religious and moral bases.

For example, America will kill you with a predator, but since when did that inspire fear in crazy people with bombs trapped unto them? Israel will take territory from you if you attack them, and then will give it all back while you parley for something called a "cease fire" (Until we rebuild our forces).

All in all, America is something to be wary of after 9/11, a paper tiger before 9/11, yet is still something that is a nice target theoretically. Israel is a hard nut to crack, but failing to crack it doesn't cripple you permanently.

So the idiots and cowards of humanity, which pretty much comprimise the majority of terroist organizations, keep trying and trying to hit and extinguish America and Israel.

The Iranian hostage situation was a great example of a Pavlovian response to terroists. It isn't rational, it is almost entirely instinctual. You don't need rationality or sentience to realize that if something gives good rewards, you should keep doing it. An animal could do that with a brain the size of a chestnut. And so can a terroist.

America does introduce the policy of not negotiating with terroists, but that is simply negating the postives rather than inflicting negatives. The best way to make use of the Pavlovian response for the animals in the guise of humans, is to simply send out a Black Ops team into whatever country said person responsible for crime against American citizen is in, and then cut out his eyes while making his subordinates watch. Then you make sure he lives. The higher the medical technology, the longer and more gruesome the wounds you can inflict on him. The whole point is to have them know you did it, and for what, but have nothing that'll allow the terroists to connect you to the "incident" on the media.

Usually, if he is in Iran or something, you can't do too much to make an example out of him or he'll just die. You do have to make sure nobody can trace it to your base country, which is why it is called Black Ops, in order for the Media not to mess it up. However, if we have forces in a country like Iraq, we can make sure some interesting accidents occur.

The key, is the Pavlovian Response. Make something negative enough on the first try, and hopefully they won't try it again and you won't have to stoop to mutilating people for a life.

With the superior American facilities in Iraq, we could have a lot of flexibility in how we make examples out of people. And the media would never ever find anything, they just won't have the proper connections. Special Forces will not sit near a reporter, if they can help it. They will not send him Abu Ghraib like pictures for kicks and giggles, nor will they want to become a media star for Dan Rather. Their livelyhoods are based upon how well they keep a secret.

The benefits are obvious. The reason why America is not doing it is because there is no particular need to go to the effort. Bush settled for making an example out of a whole country, rather than each and every terroist leader or just leader in general. We are not the ones suffering daily civilian casualties, nor would Black Ops stop attacks on American soldiers. Israel would logically be the one that really need to make examples out of people, because they suffer the most attacks and the most horrendous of casualties, civilian and military. But they don't. And that is why they get picked on.

America has something called "super power status" on our side, we can afford to take the moral high ground and use inefficient methods of counter-insurgency. You don't need to hit fast and pinpoint, when your first hit takes out an entire city. Which is how 2 skyscrapers mysteriouslly fell down.

Hitting fast and pinpoint like takes effort, additional effort, just like making examples out of people. You have to be stealthy, you have to be creative, you have to have the GUTs to actually do it or order it, and you have to be efficient and professional while doing it. Our GPS technology has benefited from the extra effort via money, but our Special Forces has not benefited simply because SF flourishes only in total war zones. They are limited by political considerations, regular army considerations that don't like people "out of the chain of command" that SF forces are, and various squeemish little civilians in their home country.

You can't argue with the results, not making examples out of people gets more people killed but if the casualties are kept to a trickle, then most people in command will tolerate it. Killing or assassinating someone isn't really a desperate move, rather putting someone out in the desert and then strapping a nuke on him to be detonated by remote command via satellite when his buddies come to free him, now THAT is desperate. And you won't use desperate measures until the Barbarians are demolitioning skyscrapers in New York and Atlanta.

The Russians will wrap pig skin on terroists, then bury them so that they won't go to Allah, simply because they are sadistic Mofos. They do that kind of thing for kicks and giggles. To be cruel by necessity is rather different and harder than to be cruel by nature. And the Russians have plenty of experience with cruelty.

As you can observe, Russia's cruelty does not remove the base of terrorism in Chechnya, let alone elsewhere in the world. No, you must have both the cruel side and the mercy side, and let neither side know the other exists ; )

Cut off a couple of fingers, then leave him for the American medical corps to find and treat. Both mercy and cruelty, positive and negative consequences. That is the best kind of Pavlovian Treatment.

Don't forget to read about the latest bullies picking on Israel the pacifistic kid, at Melanie's blog.

Power is never enough, you have to be pretty creative in using that power.